Author
Topic: Pope Francis (Read 2333 times)

It is funny watching the Catholic traditionalists get their panties all in a bunch because the pope dared to wash the feet of 2 women when he did his feet cleaning duties...and one was a Muslim.

Those who cheered Pope Benny for pulling the church back to a pre-Vatican II mentality are having a hissy fit now that Francis won't take their shit. I'd be careful to check who prepares his food and drink. John-Paul I found that out.

The ritual was initially created to mirror Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles. For this reason, the official descriptions of the rite state it is only for men (usually 12 priests.)

However, in the original Biblical story Jesus compares Himself to a servant, which has led to many areas in recent years extending the ceremony to laity including men, women, and children. From the Pope's quotes during the ceremony, he clearly was going with this interpretation of the ritual.

Traditionalists are annoyed because they feel that the Pope should be following the liturgical rules to the letter, and that this deviation sets a bad example by implicitly encouraging parishes to deviate more in the future. The Vatican basically responded by telling them to chill out.

The issue really isn't "pro-women" vs. "anti-women," though I'm sure that'll come up somewhere in this thread. It's an issue of how rigidly the Pope should adhere to the official interpretation of the ritual (symbolizing Jesus washing the 12 Apostles) vs. having the latitude to use an alternate interpretation (symbolizing servitude in general.)

Seeing as they weren't Apostles at the time, they were disciples,[1] and the whole point of the exercise was to demonstrate the reversal of human status hierarchies ("the last shall be first," "the meek shall inherit the Earth" etc.), if Francis stuck to washing the feet of other high-status males, he'd be missing the plot. Of course, one of the main things Jesus is portrayed doing in the Gospels, is criticizing the Traditionalists of his day for getting their knickers in a knot about rituals and so forth and having forgotten their purpose. So, +1 to Pope Francis, I guess, for at least trying to do Christianity right and perform the ceremony as originally intended.

Traditionalists: read the Gospels. The whole point of that particular ritual (and a whole lot of everything else Jesus is portrayed saying and doing) is to affront the very attitudes you're expressing. If that's "liberal," then tough. That's what you get for worshiping a liberal. LOL!

Isnt the Pope the one who interprets doctrine? How dare Catholics go against he who was chosen by yahweh to be the deliverer of his Word. Thats why the Pope exists, to dictate what the bible means, allowing it to change with the times. For a Catholic to disagree with the Pope is nonsensical by definition.

Isnt the Pope the one who interprets doctrine? How dare Catholics go against he who was chosen by yahweh to be the deliverer of his Word. Thats why the Pope exists, to dictate what the bible means, allowing it to change with the times. For a Catholic to disagree with the Pope is nonsensical by definition.

It's not doctrine, it's liturgical law. And yes, the Vatican sets liturgical law. Though in this case the Vatican hasn't outright changed the law, the Pope just legitimized a variation of it that is already commonly used.

Isnt the Pope the one who interprets doctrine? How dare Catholics go against he who was chosen by yahweh to be the deliverer of his Word. Thats why the Pope exists, to dictate what the bible means, allowing it to change with the times. For a Catholic to disagree with the Pope is nonsensical by definition.

Fuck them. He's the fucking pope. Their spiritual king and ultimate authority on earth. Did they forget their Nicene Creed? "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. " That means The Authority (capital letters) with Pope Pepe at the top.

If they want to go around shooting their big mouths off about their irrelevant opinions of religious rituals, then they should become protestants. Because that is exactly what they are. What a bunch of posers.

What the hell is the world coming to when you cannot even count of catholics to be subservient to their own religious authority? You have to look to the goddamn Mormons for that sort of slavish devotion anymore. Goddamn protestants have ruined everything.

Fuck them. He's the fucking pope. Their spiritual king and ultimate authority on earth. Did they forget their Nicene Creed? "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. " That means The Authority (capital letters) with Pope Pepe at the top.

The Pope is a spiritual leader, yes, but Catholics do not believe he is perfect. If Catholics think he is not leading them properly, they have every right to voice their concerns.

One of the distinguishing features of the Catholic Church is that its rituals are very standardized. Great pains are taken to ensure that they are observed the same way anywhere you go in the world, per the part of the Creed you quoted, "one holy catholic" (catholic means "universal.") This is carried out to such an extent that the English translation of the liturgy was revised a couple years ago to bring it more in line with other languages.

While the Vatican can and does revise liturgical law (such as the revision of the Tridentine Mass into the Mass of Paul VI during the Vatican II Council), churches and even the Pope are expected to adhere to it once it's set unless they get permission otherwise. The traditionalist concern is that by acting inconsistently with liturgical law, the Pope is setting the example that liturgical law is not binding and that churches can deviate from it without consequence, which could then decrease the cohesiveness of the Catholic Church.

Quote

If they want to go around shooting their big mouths off about their irrelevant opinions of religious rituals, then they should become protestants. Because that is exactly what they are. What a bunch of posers.

While I disagree with them about this event's significance, I am glad that there is a segment of the Church that becomes vocal when these types of things arise. If the Vatican ever acts in a way that becomes too off-track, I would hope that these people would stir the rest of us into pressuring it back onto the right track.

By the same token, while I disagree with the liberal segment of the Church on many issues (such as sexual morality, women priests, etc.), I am glad there is a segment of the Church that challenges its doctrines and pushes it to adapt itself to the modern world.

It's the constant tension between the unhappy extremes that lets the majority sit happily in the middle. And if the Vatican heads too far in one way or the other, the middle will hopefully lean to the opposite site to balance things out.

Quote

What the hell is the world coming to when you cannot even count of catholics to be subservient to their own religious authority?

Why do you care about a mild disagreement among the Catholic faithful? The traditionalists voiced their dissent, the Vatican issued its response backing the Pope, and the rest of us will forget about it and move on with our lives. This wouldn't even be a thing if the media hadn't picked up on it.

If Catholics think he is not leading them properly, they have every right to voice their concerns.

And it is his prerogative to excommunicate them. In the middle ages he could have had them hanged. This Pope Pepe is soft. Pope Dracula was harder on nuns for wanting to help the poor. Pepe won't last.

Pope Screwtape would have dispatched an army of Jesuit assassins[1] to crush this insurrection. Milquetoast catholics should be grateful I never entered the priesthood as I once considered.

If the Vatican ever acts in a way that becomes too off-track, I would hope that these people would stir the rest of us into pressuring it back onto the right track.

Preposterous and blasphemous. Catholicism is not a democracy. The pope has a monopoly on being moved by the holy spirit. That is what makes him infallible. And if the pope is moved by the HS to make lap dancers a part of mass, then on what ground does anyone have any authority to push back? They would be arguing against God. That is protestantism. It is the explicit rejection of the church as authority and the ascendence of oneself as religious authority.

When they were briefly popeless, and the cardinals had flocked to vote for a new one, one of the birds had said something like "we will pray for the holy spirit to guide us". So, presumably, they think the HS guided them to pick Pepe and not some other elderly virgin.

But what if the vote was not unanimous? What does that tell you about the holy spirit? What does that tell you about the cardinals?

Did the cardinals who voted for the other guys not get the message? Did the godly goblin not visit them? Did they get the message but ignore it? Did they just not recognize who was speaking to them?

Or did the guy with the horns and the pointy tail inform them whom to vote for?

You don't accept the job of being the only official spokesman for God if you are humble.

He wasn't very humble when he took time out to speak out against gay rights in Argentina a few years back...a humble guy who just let gay people get married and not presume to know what God thought about the whole deal.

I don't see Francis as being any kind of reformer, and expect him to be another yes-man continuing to roll-back Vatican 2 reforms. Not as caustic as Benedict, true. A kinder, gentler image, but the same basic policies.

Somebody call me if he reverses the church's policy of demonizing gays, condemning condom usage, refusing to allow women priests, refusing to allow priests to marry, etc. Somebody definitely should tell me even if he takes a break from gay-bashing to also condemn things like torture, Gitmo, drone bombs, the persecution of PFC Manning, etc.

Why would God choose a Pope, then the people disagree with that Pope? Do the people also disagree with God? Or are they just more concerned with their dogma?

God doesn't directly choose the Pope. The Cardinals use the Holy Spirit to guide them, but in the end it is humans making the decision. While I'd certainly hope that each Cardinal is doing his best to let the Holy Spirit work through him, the reality is we have no way of knowing the inner workings of those who actually cast the votes.

As for people disagreeing, people can (and do) disagree with whatever they want, and certainly can disagree with another human's words and actions. Disagreeing with the Pope is not tantamount to disagreeing with God, because Catholics do not believe that the Pope is God. The Pope is a human, just like everyone else, and certainly is not perfect or free from error.

You don't accept the job of being the only official spokesman for God if you are humble.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the official spokesperson for God. The bishops, collectively, are the vicars of Christ, with the title sometimes being applied specifically to the Pope. But even still, the phrase is used more in terms of leadership than in acting as a spokesperson.

To my knowledge the Catholic Church has never identified an official spokesperson of God.

How? How do they all use the HS to guide them yet still come to different conclusions? IS the HS telling different elderly virgins differnt things? Are some of the elderly virgins not paying attention? How is the vote for pope not 100% unanimous if they are being guided by god?

God doesn't directly choose the Pope. The Cardinals use the Holy Spirit to guide them, but in the end it is humans making the decision. While I'd certainly hope that each Cardinal is doing his best to let the Holy Spirit work through him, the reality is we have no way of knowing the inner workings of those who actually cast the votes.

As for people disagreeing, people can (and do) disagree with whatever they want, and certainly can disagree with another human's words and actions. Disagreeing with the Pope is not tantamount to disagreeing with God, because Catholics do not believe that the Pope is God. The Pope is a human, just like everyone else, and certainly is not perfect or free from error.

I'm not sure what you're asking about dogma.

You said "directly" as if I assumed 'god' came down from heaven and made the selection in a physical form. Clearly I was referencing what you stated, that the vote is somehow "guided" by god. However, for that to be true, the vote would absolutely have to be unanimous. And you are right, there is no way to know the inner workings of those who cast votes, but you fail to take it the next step--of whether there is ANY "holy spirit" guiding any of them. I'm sure each one of those guys thinks the HS is guiding them, and by default it has to be lying to those who have an alternative vote.

Humans disagreeing is normal. Humans claiming to follow a god who guided a vote to determine his spokesperson, or his representative, or the leader of his church here on earth, disagreeing with that god's choice is disagreeing with god... unless that is, the Pope isnt guided by god, the selection isnt guided by god, the selectors arent guided by god, etc... should these people who disagree with god's reps be the clergy then since clearly they have the inside track on what god wants.

As for the dogma comment, it has to do with Catholics being upset that god's rep broke tradition. Either they think he is guided by god or they dont. If they think he is, then their being upset means they find their dogmas and traditions to be more important than what god wants.

I appreciate your candidness, but your whole post basically shows that your god and his holy spirit have no affect in his own church.

You said "directly" as if I assumed 'god' came down from heaven and made the selection in a physical form. Clearly I was referencing what you stated, that the vote is somehow "guided" by god.

I said "directly" to ensure we were both on the same page, and to create a greater distinction between the human and divine elements.

Quote

However, for that to be true, the vote would absolutely have to be unanimous. And you are right, there is no way to know the inner workings of those who cast votes, but you fail to take it the next step--of whether there is ANY "holy spirit" guiding any of them. I'm sure each one of those guys thinks the HS is guiding them, and by default it has to be lying to those who have an alternative vote.

As someone speaking with a belief in my position, I don't always feel the need to spend time presenting the opposing view in discussions. I have, at times, considered that absolutely everything in Christianity is false (and even "absolutely everything," but that's a topic for another thread), but that doesn't mean I need to put "if Christianity is true" at the end of everything I write. Were I writing a paper on the subject, I'd feel more obligated to include the opposing view, but in a fluid discussion I'm often content to let the person holding that position be the first to present it.

As for God's guidance, I don't see why divine guidance must produce a unanimous result. Or more accurately, I can see why you said it, but not why it's binding. You seem to be working from a mental image of God choosing the best candidate and relaying that to the Cardinals as unambiguously as possible, "PICK THIS GUY!" Thus, anything short of unanimity must be evidence of failure of communication or failure to act on the communication. But we really have no basis on which to generate that image in the first place.

Catholics believe that both the human world and the divine world are important, and at the end of the day the Pope is a human leading humans. Also, Catholics believe that God gives us free will with which we can make decisions about our own futures. It's entirely possible that God chooses a Pope ahead of time, and guides discussion through gentle nudges to push it in the right direction and help the Cardinals to come to the decision through their human faculties rather than just by divine command. Or, it's also possible that the Holy Spirit inspires the Cardinals with certain qualities they should be looking for in a Pope, but leaves the actual decision to the Cardinals so that they can have input according to their human values. There's no real reason for us to assume that the Holy Spirit guiding the conclave to elect a Pope will necessarily result in a unanimous decision per divine command.

Quote

As for the dogma comment, it has to do with Catholics being upset that god's rep broke tradition. Either they think he is guided by god or they dont. If they think he is, then their being upset means they find their dogmas and traditions to be more important than what god wants.

The Pope broke neither tradition nor dogma. He violated liturgical law, which states the specific way to perform each ritual.

Your comment about dogmas being more important than what God wants is a bit nonsensical to me, because dogmas are the core beliefs that define a person as a Catholic. If someone believes that God wants something that contradicts Catholic dogma, then that person does not believe in the same god as Catholics and is by definition not Catholic.

As for traditions, they're things humans do to remind ourselves about something spiritual, and should not take the place of God's will. Speaking of which, why do you seem to be implying that the Pope's actions reflected what God wants? I saw nothing in any of the reports where the Pope or Vatican claimed that he was following divine will; why is it not possible that this was simply the Pope's will?

Quote

I appreciate your candidness, but your whole post basically shows that your god and his holy spirit have no affect in his own church.

No, it really doesn't. You seem to be assuming a false dilemma that either God is micromanaging His church or He's not managing it at all. Not only does that exclude everything in between those extremes, but it also contradicts Catholic beliefs about free will.

Why would God choose a Pope, then the people disagree with that Pope? Do the people also disagree with God? Or are they just more concerned with their dogma?

God doesn't directly choose the Pope. The Cardinals use the Holy Spirit to guide them, but in the end it is humans making the decision. While I'd certainly hope that each Cardinal is doing his best to let the Holy Spirit work through him, the reality is we have no way of knowing the inner workings of those who actually cast the votes.

As for people disagreeing, people can (and do) disagree with whatever they want, and certainly can disagree with another human's words and actions. Disagreeing with the Pope is not tantamount to disagreeing with God, because Catholics do not believe that the Pope is God. The Pope is a human, just like everyone else, and certainly is not perfect or free from error.

You don't accept the job of being the only official spokesman for God if you are humble.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the official spokesperson for God. The bishops, collectively, are the vicars of Christ, with the title sometimes being applied specifically to the Pope. But even still, the phrase is used more in terms of leadership than in acting as a spokesperson.

To my knowledge the Catholic Church has never identified an official spokesperson of God.

Why not? I mean to say, what reason(s) can you (or god) give us as to why HE has not convincingly shown the faithful and the rest of the world HE is/was directly involved in picking the human who would lead the faithful and help interpret and spread GOD'S WORD here on earth?

You go on in your post saying humans do the picking of the pope and god is not involved, but you HOPE some HOLY SPIRIT invades the Bishops bodies guiding their vote. You also say “the reality is we have no way of knowing the inner workings of those who actually cast the votes." So technichly the devil could be the holy ghost guiding the bishops.

I have to agree with AP – Religion is stupid.

Logged

A confidence man knows he's lying; that limits his scope. But a successful shaman believes what he says — and belief is contagious; there is no limit to his scope.

Why not? I mean to say, what reason(s) can you (or god) give us as to why HE has not convincingly shown the faithful and the rest of the world HE is/was directly involved in picking the human who would lead the faithful and help interpret and spread GOD'S WORD here on earth?

We believe He did--in the Bible, when Jesus made Peter the foundation of His church.

Quote

You go on in your post saying humans do the picking of the pope and god is not involved, but you HOPE some HOLY SPIRIT invades the Bishops bodies guiding their vote. You also say “the reality is we have no way of knowing the inner workings of those who actually cast the votes." So technichly the devil could be the holy ghost guiding the bishops.

Technically it could also be evil space aliens, but alas we don't structure our faith around such outside technicalities.

Quote

I have to agree with AP – Religion is stupid.

I would certainly hope so. Otherwise, why would you be an atheist?

I do think it was exceptionally kind of AP to remind us all of his position by unabashedly preaching it in the middle of this thread. Otherwise, how would we know the subtle nuances of his deepest contemplations?

We believe He did--in the Bible, when Jesus made Peter the foundation of His church.

Then what are the reasons god hasn't graced humankind in over 2000 years?

(Why must we rely on faulty humans 2000 years displaced from the actual Christ to make such enormous decisions?)

This powerful being you worship could easily clear up all the mystery regarding his existence with just one minuscule phenomenon. With today’s technology his "event" could reach every corner of humankind. Yet he chooses to remain hidden and mysterious. And HE does this when his existence is questioned more than ever. It occurs to me he wants a whole world full of Jobs.

God only makes sense if you don't question The Bible.

Logged

A confidence man knows he's lying; that limits his scope. But a successful shaman believes what he says — and belief is contagious; there is no limit to his scope.

Then what are the reasons god hasn't graced humankind in over 2000 years?

(Why must we rely on faulty humans 2000 years displaced from the actual Christ to make such enormous decisions?)

Catholics believe that God revealed Himself to us in stages, and that the final revelation came with Jesus.

We do believe that God continues to be a presence in our world (most notably through the Holy Spirit), but not in the direct way seen throughout the Bible.

Quote

This powerful being you worship could easily clear up all the mystery regarding his existence with just one minuscule phenomenon. With today’s technology his "event" could reach every corner of humankind. Yet he chooses to remain hidden and mysterious. And HE does this when his existence is questioned more than ever. It occurs to me he wants a whole world full of Jobs.

Yeah, why doesn't he set up a YouTube channel or something? God's never needed modern technology to change the world.